PUGET SOUND CARE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Puget Sound Care has a Trust Grade of C+, meaning it is considered decent and slightly above average compared to other facilities. It ranks #79 out of 190 nursing homes in Washington, placing it in the top half, and #4 out of 7 in Thurston County, indicating only three local options are better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from five in 2024 to one in 2025. Staffing is rated average with a turnover rate of 49%, which is similar to the state average, but there is concerningly less RN coverage than 87% of other facilities, meaning residents may not have as much oversight from registered nurses. However, there are some significant weaknesses to note. The facility was involved in a serious incident where a resident was harmed due to incorrect medication administration, highlighting a risk to resident safety. Additionally, there were concerns about food safety practices in the kitchen, including improper food storage and inadequate disinfection of kitchen tools, which could lead to foodborne illnesses. While Puget Sound Care has some strengths, families should weigh these serious incidents carefully when considering this facility for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Washington
- #79/190
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 49% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $8,018 in fines. Lower than most Washington facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 33 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Washington. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Washington avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
.
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served in a sanitary manner for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen practices. This ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure respiratory care was addressed on the compre...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure assistance with shaving was provided for 1 o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3) Resident 37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed Resident 37 was severely cognitiv...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
.
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper disinfecting of the food thermometer when taking food temperatures in 1 of 1 kitchens reviewed for sanitation and storage. Th...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors whe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received reasonable accommodations ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <Diet-Related Recommendations>
Resident 66 was admitted on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including muscular dystrophy (a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic (affecti...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with professional standards in 1 of 2 sampled medication...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity, and provided a dignified and timely meal service for 2 of 2 meals ob...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff completed hand hygiene during meal service on 1 of 2 halls (Hall B) reviewed for serving meals in a sanitary manner. This fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to comprehensively investigate a resident-to-resident incident for 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure bowel management interventions were initiated for 1 of 5...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered by the physician when administering via enteral tube (a tube placed through...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide education on the risk and benefits for the Pneumococcal v...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was 5% or less for the 25 total medication administrations resulting in a medication error...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure gloves were worn while handling ready to eat food and to dispose of expired food for one of three sampled dining rooms (B-Hall) an...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Puget Sound Care's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns PUGET SOUND CARE an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Washington, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Puget Sound Care Staffed?
CMS rates PUGET SOUND CARE's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 49%, compared to the Washington average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Puget Sound Care?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at PUGET SOUND CARE during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 17 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Puget Sound Care?
PUGET SOUND CARE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CALDERA CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 108 certified beds and approximately 95 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in OLYMPIA, Washington.
How Does Puget Sound Care Compare to Other Washington Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Washington, PUGET SOUND CARE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (49%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Puget Sound Care?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Puget Sound Care Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, PUGET SOUND CARE has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Washington. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Puget Sound Care Stick Around?
PUGET SOUND CARE has a staff turnover rate of 49%, which is about average for Washington nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Puget Sound Care Ever Fined?
PUGET SOUND CARE has been fined $8,018 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Washington average of $33,159. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Puget Sound Care on Any Federal Watch List?
PUGET SOUND CARE is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.